CN Grande Cache Subdivision

[Scottl]

Marking can wait a little...

I absorbed Gary's ideas and came up with this plan.  This works quite well in opening up the Grande Cache Sub for more visible running and scenic options, and also improves most aspects of operations.

Here are the main changes:

1.  The helix up to the second level has been reduced by doing a visible lap around the peninsula.  There are now two shorter helixes:  a lower with 1 or 2 loops at 21" R and an upper at 19.5" R (hopefully 3-4 loops, TBA).  There is much less hidden running and more importantly, a shorter duration while trains are hidden.

2.  The staging helix from Winniandy is now 18.5" R and will drop down to two dedicated staging tracks to increase GCS staging capacity.  There  may be some vertical issues with the staging loop (point 3 below) so the GCS staging tracks may have grade in them.  This staging is an operational win.

3.  I had been missing a way to reverse GCS trains that departed Swan Landing eastbound after moving their power (sand and some manifest trains).  This is a complex business when the yards are busy and a challenge on the prototype.  I have inserted a loop in staging from Swan Landing east that will hold two of these trains and loop under the helix complex at 21"R.  This is another major operational win in my books.

4.  All of this opens up the northbound GCS trackage climbing on the lower deck.  I moved the Wildhay River bridge. thus resolving the access issues to the turnouts east Swan Landing staging.  Mason Creek bridge on the upper deck is likely to be an issue for this access.

5.  I shifted the Berland River bridge to get better scenic space, at the expense of the narrow aisle.  This is not a space I expect will get a lot of operator use so it seems like a reasonable compromise.  I also brought this part of the peninsula towards the room door for more space.

I realize looking at this mess that it is probably hard to follow.  Green is the upper deck, black is the lower deck and red is staging.  I see to the track at Hoff is not aligned with the helix properly, but that is a minor issue to resolve.

So while this addresses many operational issues and creates many benefits, the helix complex is starting to get very complicated.  I THINK the vertical dimensions work.  This layout will be much more complicated to build, but I'm not too worried about that.

[basementcalling]

If you can, add color references to the description. It's not easy to follow the descriptions to the layout plan.

[Scottl]

Here is a cleaner version with colour-coded levels to sort out the spaghetti. 

Lower deck (black):  Swan Landing junction/yard.   Connections through staging westbound and eastbound as the Edson Subdivision/mainline.  Grand Cache Subdivision departs northbound, climbing and passing across Wildhay River bridge.  Passes into helix loop (1-2 turns).

Middle deck (purple):  Grande Cache Sub rises through Hanlon Siding and across Berland River bridge before passing into helix (3-4 turns).

Upper deck (green):  Emerges at summit (Hoff), begins decent into Grey siding and spur to Foothills Forest Products sawmill.  Decends over Mason Creek bridge, through Thordalson siding, reaches Smoky River bridge and enters Winniandy yard.  Continues north of Winniandy into staging via helix down.

Staging (red):  Several distinct elements here.  1.  Double ended through tracks for Edson Subdivision mainline staging (4 tracks, 8 train capacity). 2.  Two tracks connecting to Winniandy via helix, representing traffic  to/from north of Winniandy (2 train capacity).  3.  A reverse loop originating at Swan Landing east for traffic from east (sand, manifest, two train capacity).

Hopefully that makes sense!  It looks more complicated than it is.  I have to finalize trackage at Winniandy and add the siding at Thordalson (debating that one, it disappeared in the early 2000s).

[Angus Shops]

My current layout is 2 1/2 laps around a 17 x 12 room with 2 levels on 2 walls and 3 levels on the other 2 walls; most of the 3 level stack includes the westbound (lowest level) and eastbound (top level) staging yards. That leaves slightly more than 2 complete laps of the room as ‘on stage’. I wanted to avoid the ‘stacked layout’ look with one level directly above the other so I opted to arrange the levels in a “stadium seating” arrangement with the lower level projected forward into the room and the upper level up against the room wall. In other words, imagine a two level layout with two 12” wide shelves; the upper level may have its backdrop on the room wall and it’s front fascia 12” in front of the wall and the lower level would have its backdrop 6” in front of the room wall,and it’s fascia 18” from the wall (dimensions for illustrative purposes). I also made it a goal not to have the main track on the lower level underneath the structure of the deck above, where possible. In locations where the elevation between decks was restricted I projected the lower deck farther forward (perhaps 8 or 9” ‘clear’ with only 3 or 4” positioned under the upper deck. Overall I’m very pleased with this approach; it helps avoid the claustrophobic look that can develop on multi level,layouts. This approach may be helpful on your 3 level peninsula, and ‘green level’ over Swan Landing.

The peninsula looks pretty complex; I suggest you draw up lots of full size sections that include a realistic allowance for benchwork structure, together with your proposed scenery profile. If necessary, build a mock up with cardboard. During the planning process for my layout I figured out the track elevations (in inches with “0” at the lowest point) every 2 feet along the track so I could check that I had suitable elevation between track levels for what I was envisioning, including structure and scenery elements. I used this data to create the full size section drawings; in turn these revealed a lot of issues that were not apparent in plan view.

Lastly, when you get to construction, I highly recommend a laser level.

[Scottl]

Thanks for the thoughts, that is very helpful. 

I am worried about filling the room and making it feel too closed in.  I like the "stadium seating" concept and I think it will work above Swan Landing.  I am thinking of removing the upper deck siding at Thordalson and making that area a narrower and simpler run of track to avoid any hands-on activity above Swan Landing.  I will probably also move the Smoky River bridge to the right and extend the Winniandy tracks as well, since I need room to handle entire trains there.

It is less clear how that approach will work on the peninsula, and I need to get this complex bit correct, so I am taking your advice virtually first and working through all the elevations and grades in SCARM where I drew this.  It should, in theory, give a decent 3D rendering to contemplate and refine things.  I built a 1/4 model once of a complex layout idea and it was also a very helpful exercise.

I have a laser level that someone gave me- one of the rotational ones that mounts on a tripod.  i expect it will get a lot of use building this layout!

[Angus Shops]

If Thordalson is a simple ‘siding in the wilderness’ with no other track then the ‘hands on activity’ would be pretty limited and probably wouldn’t interfere with the activity at SL. On the other hand eliminating Thordalson gives you nice stretch of single track running.

I’m a landscape architect by profession, so I look at everything through LA’s eyes. In my case I envisioned the ‘landscape’ (scenery) my trains would be running through from my very earliest drawings. Many of my early sketches include representations of the landscape rendered in colour like a model railroad magazine track plan. Knowing what the scenery will look like informs the planning process. For example, if the scene includes the track running parallel to a river, then you know that the top of the fascia (“water level”) will be an inch or two below track level. If you’re already tight for vertical separation between decks, that inch or two may squeeze the lower level. The “stadium” arrangement might be helpful to give a ‘squeezed’ area a little space. I guess what I’m really advocating for is to plan for the scenery as well as the track.

I think your operational concept is similar to mine: the movement of trains from one end of the layout to the other without necessarily including large amounts of switching en route, with the action consisting of managing opposing traffic on a single track. Sounds like fun to me! My layout runs staging to staging: west staging - Town of Golden BC (with ample switching opportunities and junction with Windemere Sub) - single track- Palliser siding - single track - Ottertail siding - single track - town of Field BC - east staging. Both Palliser and Ottertail sidings have ‘set out tracks’ for added operational opportunities, but other than a fair bit of industry in Golden and a lesser amount in Field, it’s mainline running, in theory on TT & TO (late 1950’s).

[CRL]

I’m waiting on the holographic projection. When will that be ready? 🤓

[mark dance]

Hey Scott...sorry for coming in late here.   I also have only skimmed all of Gary & Geoff's comments...

I like where this is going.  However something fairly fundamental that could be challenged...better now than later of course! 

I see you have come over to the "dark side" and now are envisioning using twin gates at the door...great! An around the walls + peninsula plan is always the most (mainline length/floor space) optimal.  What it would also allow is for you to preserve directional orientation between decks...now they reverse, i.e.  northward is to the left on the lower deck and to the right on the upper deck.   This may seem like a small thing, and admittedly it would be a smaller problem for regular crew and non-TT&TO ops, but it is one of the more common sources of confusion for everyone else. 

I recognize this may be problematic for Winniandy's location but better to raise it now...could Winniandy occupy the same space but on a 3rd deck and just keep the added mainline on the second and third deck as simple single track in the wilderness per Geoff's comments?

md

[mark dance]

Actually it might be easier to reverse the direction of SL as WN's orientation is how you would view the prototype and right now SL's viewing direction is not as the river is against the backdrop.  This would likely mean moving the door and gates to the other end of the room...

OK, i'll shut up now...

md

[Scottl]

Mark, thanks for your input- really helpful.

Unfortunately, the door can't move much here- it could along the bottom wall, but the right wall is occupied by closets on the other side (part of the revised basement plans).

Your suggestion about keeping everything in the same direction is interesting and probably more important than my limited operating experience suggests.  I can immediately see how the entire plan could be made into a nolix-style, running counter-clockwise around the room as northbound on the GCS.  This would give quite a bit of extra track to work with and ultimately might be a great approach.  The only immediate downside to that would be having to loop trains from the 3rd deck at Winniandy down to the 1st deck.  With a lot of running distance, that might not be as much of an issue and I can simply have Winniandy as a terminal and trains reverse out of there.

I'll play around a bit with these ideas and see what emerges.

[basementcalling]

Scott, dunno if it's feasible, but could you model only one side of the hill and focus on just 1/2 of what you have now? Sometimes that has worked well for layouts with a mountain setting. If one side is a helper grade and the other is not, it could allow you to extend the length of the helper operations section, if that is something you want to focus on operationally. 

If it were me, I would be trying hard not to have 3 lift out sections. 1 is very doable, but I think that rule about not repeating features on the layout -for operational purposes - could also apply to physical plant features. 2 of them are not likely to be twice as nice, just twice as much maintenance. And three... well...

A nolix is a very doable approach, and was one feature of my now defunct Oregon and Eastern that actually worked out better than planned. As long as part of the train is visible while in the loop, unstacking a helix and spreading out the height gain around the layout is a better choice than having a long hidden run built in to get from deck to deck if operators will be running trains through it. Staging is different obviously, but a helix is about the only thing more complex than a lift out section on your plan.

[mark dance]

I was envisioning the GC sub spiraling clockwise up and the Edson sub running east to the right / west to the left.  This way the rivers at both SL and Winniandy are in the foreground (front  of layout).  Added bonuses are compass North is in front of the operators and  the dramatic mountains behind SL would be on the backdrop!

md

[Scottl]

I see what you mean.  Scenically it is probably better, but I admit it is strange to me to have northbound GCS leaving Swan Landing in that direction.  I'll play around with it and see what I can do.

[mark dance]

I see what you mean.  Scenically it is probably better, but I admit it is strange to me to have northbound GCS leaving Swan Landing in that direction.  I'll play around with it and see what I can do.

It likely only seems strange because of our relatively recent SL yard design, which we promptly fell in love with!  And if I am recalling correctly that design seemed "unnatural" at first because it placed the adjacent river against the backdrop with the mainline causeway (signature scene) veering towards the backdrop as well.  This can potentially all be rectified with west-to-the-left Edson sub, which in turn has been permitted by the swing gates permitting running direction to be preserved between decks because of the around the walls floorplan.

And might I suggest that while you investigate a Clockwise nolix you still reserve enough "floor space" somewhere for an 18"R Helix?  This type of space always comes in handy for return loops off of uppur or lower staging, a top-to-bottom continuous run for railfanning or restaging, a connection to consolidate staging yards, a loop or two too gain just a bit of height between levels, and/or a hidden balloon track to simulate a branchline, large industry or interchange.  Stacking one or more of these features makes this a very efficient use of space.

md

[Scottl]

That is true, funny how our perspective (well, mine for sure) has evolved over the course of time with this planning process.

I mentally a CW nolix and can see the peninsula containing a helix to connect Winniandy to Swan Landing.  It won't offer staging as easily but it is pretty simple to put in the space, along with an eastbound loop out of Swan Landing for turning those trains around too.